Paul Did NOT See Peter as Head of the Church

[FathersKnowBest]

In terms of authority, I obey them in issues under their proper purview. In Anglicanism as enshrined in our councils and canons, that purview does not include the personal beliefs of Anglicans.

Interesting.

What isn’t a personal belief?

What if my personal belief is to reject those councils and canons?

What if my “personal belief” is, for example, that a woman who agrees to go on a date is implicitly agreeing to more?

As for Scripture, I do not believe that homosexuality is a sin, although (or possibly because) I know precisely what Paul says about it. I do not believe that women must keep silent in church.

A bad instruction is a bad instruction, no matter who gives it.

Bad according to whom? Each person’s “personal belief?”

 

[benhur]

One can only receive authority from one with authority. Legitimate authority is never assumed.

Hi Steve

Yet it is eventually assumed what constitutes legitimate authority. That is the “problem”, as evidenced by schisms, with eventual O’s and P’s.

Then we assume “others” have an authority problem, whether submitting to , or lording over.

 

[SteveVH]

Hi Steve

Yet it is eventually assumed what constitutes legitimate authority. That is the “problem”, as evidenced by schisms, with eventual O’s and P’s.

Then we assume “others” have an authority problem, whether submitting to , or lording over.

Hey, Ben.

I think you misunderstand what I mean by “assumed”. We do not “assume” that our bishops were ordained by one with authority. That authority can be traced back through a line of successoin; all the way back. For one who is not in the line of succession to claim the same authority as one that is, is to “assume” authority. That is why the Catholic and EO Church’s are the only one’s with a legitimate claim to apostolic authority.

Peace.

Steve

 

[Mystophilus]

What isn’t a personal belief?

Anything which can be established by analysis of verifiable data, i.e. not a great deal, and nothing whatsoever in regard to metaphysics.

What if my personal belief is to reject those councils and canons?

Hi! Welcome to the Anglican Continuum!

The Anglican Communion includes everyone from sola scriptura literalists to saint-venerating Anglo-Catholics to passionate Reformers, not to mention all colours of liberals, and the moderates who hold us all together.

What if my “personal belief” is, for example, that a woman who agrees to go on a date is implicitly agreeing to more?

Then your belief is self-evidently harmful, i.e. bad, and any person unable to understand that without being told by a church or other authority should never be left unattended.

Bad according to whom? Each person’s “personal belief?”

Ontologically bad, reducing the total amount of freedom, happiness, love, potential, creativity, etc in the universe.

 

[Mystophilus]

She?

Oh…okay. :nope:

Anglican, remember?

Those whom the good GKC may describe as “females in vestments” are priests in a gradually increasing number of Anglican provinces.

 

[Mystophilus]

So, Myst,…why do you believe it is not necessary?

Um, there are far too many posts in this thread with my name on them, many explaining just that…

However, I would point out that I wrote, “I do not believe that it is necessary”, not “I believe that it is not necessary”. There is a difference: I see no evidence of a need for it.

Is your believing in AS not necessary an absolute truth?

You do not think you could be wrong in you belief?

More firmly than I believe in anything about faith, I believe that **all **mortals can be (and usually are) wrong. That does not prevent me from believing: it just ensures that I observe the difference between belief and knowledge.

 

[Mystophilus]

There is a new thread having to do with what it means to be a Catholic. An even more interesting thread, IMO, after reading your comments, would be “What does it mean to be Anglican”. Do you have to believe anything in particular?

Functionally, no, we don’t: the Communion is a confederation of autonomous provinces. Individual provinces are generally governed by a conciliar method, taking votes from representatives of the episcopacy, the rest of the clergy, and the laity.

When we talk about “motley”, or “the Continuum”, we really mean it: there is a lot of variety, and it is all natural to Anglicanism (including the variants which try to exclude the others from “real” Anglicanism).

 

[stewstew03]

Um, do you see the logical issue there? That bolded part is your source of information. If your source of information is human, and to err is human, then you do not **know **that what it says is true, although you might choose to *believe *it.

I’m not sure I understand… is it your contention that God does not use humanity to reveal His will?

 

[Mystophilus]

I don’t follow them. I follow God.

Wow! Really?

Let’s go with “try to follow God”, shall we?

idiot

 

[Mystophilus]

I’m not sure I understand… is it your contention that God does not use humanity to reveal His will?

Not precisely, just that humans should be **very **careful about presuming that anything which they or anyone else thinks or says is actually God’s will.

 

[PRmerger]

In terms of authority, I obey them in issues under their proper purview. In Anglicanism as enshrined in our councils and canons, that purview does not include the personal beliefs of Anglicans.

As for Scripture, I do not believe that homosexuality is a sin, although (or possibly because) I know precisely what Paul says about it. I do not believe that women must keep silent in church.

A bad instruction is a bad instruction, no matter who gives it.

This leads to a question that must be asked: is there anything that you have conformed your views to, because God has declared it? Despite your own personal “I do not believe that”?

As Tim Keller says: if your God never disagrees with you, you may be worshipping an idealized version of yourself.

In the interest of self-disclosure, I will offer my own conformity. I personally believe that divorce and re-marriage is fine. I have seen way too many friends marry jerks, who have found love a second time around and in my personal view, am quite happy for them.

However, I cannot change the fact that God believes otherwise. God has said: divorce and remarriage is adultery.

So, I conform.

I don’t recreate a god that says, “Of course divorce and remarriage isn’t wrong!”

 

[benhur]

Hey, Ben.

I think you misunderstand what I mean by “assumed”. We do not “assume” that our bishops were ordained by one with authority. That authority can be traced back through a line of successoin; all the way back. For one who is not in the line of succession to claim the same authority as one that is, is to “assume” authority. That is why the Catholic and EO Church’s are the only one’s with a legitimate claim to apostolic authority.

Peace.

Steve

Thank you . I did see the word could go both ways , but understood your context / meaning. My use is the other context.

 

[stewstew03]

Not precisely, just that humans should be **very **careful about presuming that anything which they or anyone else thinks or says is actually God’s will.

Well that’s different. I thought you were saying we CAN’T know God’s will because of human error. You’re saying we can know - we just need to be careful. Is that right?

 

[Mystophilus]

This leads to a question that must be asked: is there anything that you have conformed your views to, because God has declared it? Despite your own personal “I do not believe that”?

As Tim Keller says: if your God never disagrees with you, you may be worshipping an idealized version of yourself.

I appreciate the problem, but there are others interwoven with it.

The temptation to conform to someone else’s views can be a temptation towards the abnegation of moral responsibility, just like the soldier who says, “I was only following orders.” This is cognitively and emotionally easier, because it frees the individual from carrying the heavy burdens not only of moral calculation but also of constant doubt. In such a situation, if your God does disagree with you but you humbly submit, you may be worshipping an idealised version of your parents. This is not always the case, but it is always worth considering.

Further, the issue of determining precisely what is declared by God is its own epistemological puzzle, since a willingness to *presume *that X is the mouthpiece of God (i.e., everything that X says is declared by God) is very vulnerable to the problem just mentioned. This applies to everything from absolute faith in a particular teacher, to absolute faith in a particular text, to absolute faith in a particular ecclesiastical body. Both this and the above are especially notable with respect to Islam, which is all about submission, as its name says; Catholicism and conservative Protestantism are also vulnerable to them.

On the other side (not accepting any such authority), of course, there is the temptation towards the dismissal of culpability, by deifying one’s own prejudices (as you mention), by the enthronement of rebellious pride (“No one can tell me what to do!”), or by the enthronement of philosophical pride (“I [alone] understand the Truth!!!”). Liberal Protestantism and the radical versions of pretty much every faith are vulnerable to these.

Personally, I do not take the view that anything is reliably identifiable as the view of God and that very little is reliably identifiable as unimpeachably correct, which means that I have to muddle through, always trying to work out what is right, with the *constant certainty *that I am wrong much of the time. It requires a very different type of faith to the faith in the teacher, text, or church: an awful lot of faith in the magnanimity of God.

 

[jlhargus]

But what we are faced with here is an argument from silence, or rather a parade of them. Paul could have said things in Romans 1 about Rome’s future role, or the role of its bishop, or in Ephesians 4 he could have mentioned a pope along with the apostles, and among those 12 thrones of apostles in the book of Revelations there could have been one extra gold and shiny. 1 Clement doesn’t bother to mention the bishop, Justin Martyr describes a church service in which there is no bishop or priest, just “one presiding”. Paul rebuked Peter. And he went up to Jerusalem.

Paul or any of the twelve could have said God is a Trinity. They could also have said what books make up the canon of the bible. They could have said OSAS yet they didn’t they said the opposite of OSAS. Yes a parade of silence. It would have been nice to have everything spelled out, with every I dotted, but God didn’t choose to do it that way. He chose to give us a pillar and ground of truth the Church, the household of the living God, 2Tm3:15. Sending an apostolic teaching authority (magisterium) to teach the whole world till the end, Mt16-20. Promising to send the Spirit of Truth to lead His bride into all truth. As John wrote, [Jn21:25 And **there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.]

Paul could have said things in Romans 1 about Rome’s future role,

Paul did reveal the Church of Rome would still be teaching the gospel when God bruises Satan under her feet. Also Paul never writes, “the churches of Christ salute you”, to any other church to which he wrote.

[Rms16:16 Salute one another with an holy kiss. **The churches of Christ salute you. 17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. 18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. 19 For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil. 20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.]

Justin Martyr describes a church service in which there is no bishop or priest, just “one presiding”. Paul rebuked Peter. And he went up to Jerusalem.

The president or one presiding would have been a bishop or priest. They alone can consecrate bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. When there are more than one bishop or priest celebrating mass one is the president or presider. The others concelebrate in union with the president or presider. We know this by Tradition and Scripture.

[Titus1:4 To **Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour. 5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:]

Just as Phillip, a deacon, could preach and baptize, as deacons do today, but could not confirm those to whom he preached and baptized at Samaria. The Sacrament of Confirmation was reserved to the apostles. The bishops today.

[Acts8:12 But **when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 … 14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.]

 

[PRmerger]

I appreciate the problem, but there are others interwoven with it.

The temptation to conform to someone else’s views can be a temptation towards the abnegation of moral responsibility, just like the soldier who says, “I was only following orders.” This is cognitively and emotionally easier, because it frees the individual from carrying the heavy burdens not only of moral calculation but also of constant doubt. In such a situation, if your God does disagree with you but you humbly submit, you may be worshipping an idealised version of your parents. This is not always the case, but it is always worth considering.

Further, the issue of determining precisely what is declared by God is its own epistemological puzzle, since a willingness to *presume *that X is the mouthpiece of God (i.e., everything that X says is declared by God) is very vulnerable to the problem just mentioned. This applies to everything from absolute faith in a particular teacher, to absolute faith in a particular text, to absolute faith in a particular ecclesiastical body. Both this and the above are especially notable with respect to Islam, which is all about submission, as its name says; Catholicism and conservative Protestantism are also vulnerable to them.

On the other side (not accepting any such authority), of course, there is the temptation towards the dismissal of culpability, by deifying one’s own prejudices (as you mention), by the enthronement of rebellious pride (“No one can tell me what to do!”), or by the enthronement of philosophical pride (“I [alone] understand the Truth!!!”). Liberal Protestantism and the radical versions of pretty much every faith are vulnerable to these.

Personally, I do not take the view that anything is reliably identifiable as the view of God and that very little is reliably identifiable as unimpeachably correct, which means that I have to muddle through, always trying to work out what is right, with the *constant certainty *that I am wrong much of the time. It requires a very different type of faith to the faith in the teacher, text, or church: an awful lot of faith in the magnanimity of God.

This sounds very much like you are saying in response to my question: no. Everything that I believe, God happens to agree with me on.

Is this a correct extrapolation of what you are saying above?

 

[clem456]

Originally Posted by PRmerger View Post
How do you know what God revealed…except by following men who told you what God revealed?

Um, do you see the logical issue there? That bolded part is your source of information. If your source of information is human, and to err is human, then you do not **know **that what it says is true, although you might choose to *believe *it.

Personally, I do not take the view that anything is reliably identifiable as the view of God and that very little is reliably identifiable as unimpeachably correct, which means that I have to muddle through, always trying to work out what is right, with the *constant certainty *that I am wrong much of the time. It requires a very different type of faith to the faith in the teacher, text, or church: an awful lot of faith in the magnanimity of God.

God reveals himself through his Son.
Who is God’s Son? Without going on about his attributes, we could begin by accepting that Jesus Christ is a person, he is God incarnate. God’s fullest word about himself is a person, not a disparate book, or a disconnected metaphysical idea (Gnosticism).

Who is this person?
He is a divine person with full human nature. Christ is not a distant revelation of God in a purely metaphysical way, but a divine person who is fully human. Christ has “skin in the game”.
Question:
Is it a mere accident that God came to live among us, as one of us? Is there a reason (a logos) in that? Did he really and substantially live in time and space? Did he interact in a true and substantial way with other human beings, a “community”?

If you accept Christ’s full humanity, how does this affect your conception of charisms given to human beings living in community? Consider: God’s greatest gift is to make himself human so that we might know him. If God did not mean for human beings to have his gifts as he sees fit, then we might wonder… why did he become one himself? To confuse us? So that we might not know him???

What is the point of Christ bothering to become incarnate and form a human community??? Is it all for show or a display of brotherly emotion?

Your default to a disconnected metaphysics in the area of grace, specifically the charism of authority being discussed, fails in the Incarnation of Christ. Men do indeed tell us who God is, because God’s fullest revelation of his very self is through the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.

 

[stewstew03]

…
Your default to a disconnected metaphysics in the area of grace, specifically the charism of authority being discussed, fails in the Incarnation of Christ. Men do indeed tell us who God is, because God’s fullest revelation of his very self is through the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.

 

[Mystophilus]

This sounds very much like you are saying in response to my question: no. Everything that I believe, God happens to agree with me on.

Is this a correct extrapolation of what you are saying above?

Did you miss the part which says, “with the constant certainty that I am wrong much of the time”?

 

[Mystophilus]

Well…don’t you do the same thing? You follow men in the Anglican church?

Are the one who decides and determines what is from God and what is not?

My apologies, I’ve been answering responses up and down this thread (and am still rather confused as to why my ideas should be so interesting to so many), and missed this one.

FWIW, I answered this enquiry here. The short answer to your first question is “No”, and the answer to (what I presume to be) your second is “No one”: rather than anything as definitive as *deciding *or determining, my views (and much, but not all Anglican theology, as it happens) are more about *proposing *and hypothesizing.

It’s a radically different ecclesiology to the official Catholic one, and some Catholics do have considerable difficulty comprehending how it works, in much the way that some Protestants have difficulty comprehending how Catholicism works.